> 1) the introduction of a new scheme called "ipp"
>
Not a problem for the case in which the client talks directly to the
origin server. In fact, the scheme isn't part of the HTTP request
message in this case; it's more of a hint to the client about how to
connect to the server.
Big problem for proxy servers, though. An existing proxy server
wouldn't know how to proxy a request to an absolute URI with an "ipp"
scheme.
And not all proxies are firewalls. Sometimes they're used for caching
(e.g., to reduce transoceanic traffic in an intranet).
> 2) the introduction a new default port number for IPP servers.
>
No major implications from my point of view.
http://pwg.org/hypermail/ipp/0523.html
--------------7A8176E65D10978C9D9AF6D2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="0523.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="0523.html"
Content-Base: "http://pwg.org/hypermail/ipp/0523.html"
<!-- received="Mon Jun 1 13:26:22 1998 EDT" -->
<!-- sent="Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:20:01 PDT" -->
<!-- name="Carl-Uno Manros" -->
<!-- email="manros@cp10.es.xerox.com" -->
<!-- subject="IPP> Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existing" -->
<!-- id="3.0.5.32.19980601102001.00a0b510@garfield" -->
<!-- inreplyto="" -->
<title>IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existing</title>
<h1>IPP> Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existing</h1>
Carl-Uno Manros (<i>manros@cp10.es.xerox.com</i>)<br>
<i>Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:20:01 PDT</i>
<p>
<ul>
<li> <b>Messages sorted by:</b> <a href="date.html#523">[ date ]</a><a href="index.html#523">[ thread ]</a><a href="subject.html#523">[ subject ]</a><a href="author.html#523">[ author ]</a>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0524.html">Ted Hardie: "IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existing HTTP servers"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0522.html">Paul Moore: "RE: IPP> review of IPP documents"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
<li> <b>Next in thread:</b> <a href="0529.html">PETER_E_MELLQUIST@hp-roseville-om3.om.hp.com: "Re: IPP> Implications of introducing new scheme and port f"</a>
</ul>
<!-- body="start" -->
Hi,<br>
<p>
As most of you know already, the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) WG has<br>
suggested using HTTP as "transport", with the payload in the form of a MIME<br>
object passed with the POST method.<br>
<p>
As part of the onging IESG review process, the Application Area Director<br>
Keith Moore has suggested to distinguish IPP traffic from "normal" HTTP<br>
traffic by: <br>
<p>
1) the introduction of a new scheme called "ipp"<br>
2) the introduction a new default port number for IPP servers.<br>
<p>
Before the IPP WG responds to those suggestions, the IPP WG would like to<br>
get some advice from the HTTP WG on the implications of such a change.<br>
In particular, we want some feedback on how easy or difficult it would be<br>
to configure existing web servers to accomodate the suggested changes.<br>
<p>
Please note that many printer vendors are not in the business of developing<br>
web servers or HTTP servers and are dependent on getting those compoments<br>
from other vendors.<br>
<p>
Please respond back to the IPP DL at:<br>
<p>
ipp@pwg.org<br>
<p>
Thanks,<br>
<p>
Carl-Uno Manros<br>
Chair of the IETF IPP WG<br>
<!-- body="end" -->
<p>
<ul>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0524.html">Ted Hardie: "IPP> Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existing HTTP servers"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0522.html">Paul Moore: "RE: IPP> review of IPP documents"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
<li> <b>Next in thread:</b> <a href="0529.html">PETER_E_MELLQUIST@hp-roseville-om3.om.hp.com: "Re: IPP> Implications of introducing new scheme and port f"</a>
</ul>
--------------7A8176E65D10978C9D9AF6D2--